Higher the balance point, heavier the head racket is. However, I have came through a racket which is head light but the balance point is at 295+/-mm. How is that possible?
I'm sure you measure it with string right? 295mm with string is head light 305mm above with string is head heavy when we said balance point define head heaviness of a racket, we measure it in DRY weight without string, with factory grip, without any modification at all
Urm, nope.. It's actually written on the shaft.. that is why..hmm... Li-Ning Windstorm 680 (head light) --> 295+/-mm Yonex Voltric 5 (head heavy) -------> 285-295mm
ok, checked the racket, windstorm 680 right? it is a very light racket (78-80gram) that might be the problem maybe, the racket itself is head heavy, but because it is light (in term of weight), you can swing it faster, and you might mistaken it as head light
bp is only useful when your rackets are of similar weight. windstorm 680 is a w1. ie (78g-80g) Yonex Voltric 5 is a 3u ie (85-89g) even though the bp is lower in the voltric 5. It most likely to feel heavier when swung in the case. ie like a 10g in difference in weight. Swing weight of a racket is probably more usueful. But no badminton racket manufacturer list the dry ot wet swing weight.
So, if a manufacturer announces a racquet with 295mm bp, I can expect that the balance point with strings will be higher? Can you tell me aproximately how many mm more?
This reminds me of when Lin Dan was famous for having the least amount of grip than anyone and he probably had lead tape too. Imagine what that bp would have been lol Anyway, to answer your question as others already have, the bp printed on the shaft doesn't determine head heaviness. If after you've made your changes (i.e. strings, grip, etc) and your racket still balances at 295-300 mm for example, then it's headheavy. If the frame is aerodynamic vs. box-shaped it doesn't change the headheaviness. What it does do is change the amount of energy you can impart on the shuttle. If two rackets had the same mass and the same bp, the one that is aerodynamic will deliver a faster smash. So I don't get why all rackets aren't shaped more aerodynamically.
Disagree. If you have a bravesword and a superwave both with the same weight and bp and stiffness, I'll be willing to bet with you that the superwave will smash and hit harder, but at the expense of less maneuverability and defense.
Well I'm not familiar with Victor rackets and their technologies. If they do have the same technology then I don't know why they would be that much different. If they don't have the same technology, why are you comparing them in a hypothetical thought experiment? To be clear, I'm thinking about two rackets being identical except for the frame shape where it's aero vs. box. If it really is the case that two identical rackets only differ in frame shape yet still generating different power then I hope a physics/engineer expert could elaborate on how that might be possible. My argument is that aerodynamic frames can produce more kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is defined as 0.5*mass*velocity^2, if mass is identical then the only difference is velocity which is influenced by the amount of air-resistance the entire racket experiences. Even if there were two identical rackets that only differed in their composition, then it's probably because of the material, not the frame shape itself...
Could you elaborate on that? I'm not going to say you're wrong but to be honest it sounds really interesting and I'd like to hear why you said that.
It's true that KE= 0.5mv^2 applies in string to shuttle transfer of energy. But there reaches a point when the human muscle cannot swing any faster with proper timing and accuracy to make a clean strike. I've compared sw30 with mx70 before, both 85g 295mm bp dry, strung and gripped exactly the same. Iirc the mx70 was even close to 1g heavier. The mx70 is a fast aero frame while the sw30 is a box aero frame, both with similarly stiff shafts. Even though the sw30 was swinging noticeably but slightly slower, I was getting more bombs out of the smashes from it than the mx70. I don't know how else to explain it but the sw30 felt like it had more meat going into the smash. However, the compromise is in the defence and maneuverability. This is where swing weight measurements would help better than just simple static wt and bp data.
I'm surprised no compnay has made a doppler radar that carries out contact efficiency and condition in badminton. It's all the rage in golf and the radar can measure ball speeds even @ 350km/h so the shuttle speeds should still be doable. They have it in tennis to the best of my knowledge, so it shouldn't be impossible to transfer over. It should be able to do racquet face orientation as well as RHS at the moment of contact as well. (if I tranlsate it directly from the golf application per se). This way there shouldn't be any guesses as to which racquet does what better in terms of generating power; it's all there from the data instead of a butt dyno.
^^ Yep, agree. Golf equipment customisation according to swing analysis is quite common in the sport; if someone could offer that in badminton, he would be rich.
Balance point is not the only factor that determines head-heaviness and to me is not always a reliable way of measuring the "balance" of the racquet. I've always known this but it does go against the general accepted view and is a little difficult to explain without a diagram so I've not bothered to discuss this. Aerodynamics aside, the simplest measure of head-heaviness is through calculating the moment (turning force) generated as you distribute mass or weight to different parts of the racquet. My view is that the "fulcrum" should be somewhere along the players hand given that the racquet is mostly rotated through the wrist and that the difference in racquet balance is felt by the players wrist/hand. The moment therefore is simply the sum of the leverarms of the elements multiplied by their respective weights. M = FxD. For example, if we assume the loads are broken down into three main parts, head, shaft and handle. To get the real "balance" of the racquet I believe we should take moments about the players hand not the centre of mass of the racquet (which is what has been done conventionally). Although the conventional method does give an indication of the balance it does not work too well when you add or modify the standard racquet imo. M = (Head Weight x D1) + (Shaft Weight x D2) + (Handle Weight x D3) Where the leverarm distances D1, D2, D3 are the distances from the centre of mass of the constituent part to the fulcrum (players hand). The higher the moment M, the more head heavy the racquet will feel. Given that the weight class is fixed (U, 2U, 3U etc) the amount of weight distribution is generally not significant. Now, if we take the conventional method, measuring the balance point of the racquet (centre of mass), it would suggest that adding new overgrips on top of your original grip will make the racquet a lot more headlight since adding more weight to the handle would shift the balance point down towards the handle. However, to me, this is completely wrong. In reality it does not really make much difference to the balance at all, or at least no where near as much as the difference in balance point would suggest. This is because the additional weight of the overgrips are near/at the fulcrum (the players hand) so the leverarm D3 should be near zero. So in reality the "balance" of the racquet does not change. Yes, the extra weight may be felt as "extra baggage" but it should not effect the balance of the racquet realistically. However if we were to alter the weight of the head, this would indeed alter the balance of the racquet at it is at a fair distance from the fulcrum. Try it for yourself, find the most head heavy racquet, at a ton of grips/weight to the handle to make the balance "even balanced" or "head light", try playing with it and you'll see it is still actually head heavy. Hope that helps.
I don't have technical analysis data to back me up, but I guess it is due to 1) stability of the racquet face is important, box maybe more stable than aero frame 2) robustness of racquet, the more aero the frame the more likely paint chip/minor crack etc will happen during clash, because the stress is higher at point of contact - more localised, versus box frame - more dispersed as the frame is less "pointed". Again i stresed take everything above with a pinch of salt, I am not a scientist !
Are those two rackets the same length? If two rackets have the same balance pt (eg. 295mm from the butt), but one is longer, the longer one will be more head light (or less head heavy) than the shorter racket.
I'm going to quote this because this is the answer. You guys are obsessed with BP but you have to look at this using torque (also called moment, like in the post above). A simple example: Feel your racket, swing it. Then find your balance point on the racket, at this very point, add some significant mass (tape, whatever). You will end up with the same balance point but your racket will not have the same feeling, not at all. Distribution of the weight is what you need to look at. Added weight near the handle will also affect the racket and your swing but much less than the same mass put on the head of the racket.
